Commercial test is the final stage of product testing. In this stage, test products and market products were chosen to conform if the final product meets up to the expectation of the consumers. In other words, the original WHATs, sweetness, milk flavor, kiwi flavor and thickness, have to be achieved and the overall acceptability of the product should be determined, which all should be confirmed in commercial sensory test.
Experimental Design
Four product samples were evaluated for four attributes and overall acceptability by 56 untrained assessors. A balanced complete block was used. A preference test with 9-point hedonic scale commercial sensory test was conducted and finished by using ‘Compusense Five’ in sensory taste panel room in one day. Four products were labeled on different codes during the commercial sensory test which are indicated in Table below. Before each sensory test, assessors would be required to sign in the allergy form to make assessors understanding sensory test. The meaning of the 9-point hedonic scale would be explained to assessors. Samples would be presented one by one. Twenty seconds time would be controlled between two samples and ‘drink more water between 2 samples’ would be suggested. As temperature is an important parameter for sensory test, 4-6℃ of samples’ temperature would be insured during the experiments.
Products
Low fat soya yogurt drink with kiwi flavor 1
Low fat soya yogurt drink with kiwi flavor 2
low fat drinking yoghurt with L.casei Danone culture, Vitamin B6+D and orange
low fat drinking yoghurt with L.casei Danone culture, Vitamin B6+D and multifruit
Sample code
949
763
884
262
Test code
A
B
C
D
Result analysis The results of the commercial test have been analysed using the project R. As a preference test with 9-point hedonic scale was conducted, the single factor within-subject ANOVA with rating test would be used first, which includes Tukey additivity test and ANOVA test. If the Tukey additivity test is not rejected and the ANOVA test is significant, then the Tukey’s honestly significant difference test would be conducted. Otherwise, if the Tukey additives test is significant, which means that there was interaction between two samples, so that the Friedman test would be used. What is more, if the results show the Friedman test is rejected, Tukey HSD by ranks test would be acted. The analysis was divided into 5 parts which expressed attributes individually. For results of sweetness,milkflavour,thicknessand overall acceptability, the Tukey additivity test was not rejected and the ANOVA tests was significant. So, Tukey’s honestly significant difference test was carried. In the results of Tukey’s honestly significant difference test, in sweetness for instance, the difference of sample A and sample B was -0.08928571 indicating that the value of sample A is bigger than B.That means that sample A is more acceptable than sample B. From that test, it suggested that sample A (Low fat soya yogurt drink with kiwi flavour 1, code no.949) is the most acceptable one among the 4 samples for all the attributes except milk flavour. Sample B contain more cow’s yoghurt than sample A, so that the milk flavour is more acceptable. However, according to the results of overall acceptability, sample A seems to be better than B, following by C and D. To sum up, trends for overall acceptability indicate that: A>B>C>D. As for the fruit flavour, the results from Tukey additivity test were significant while for Friedman test were non-significant. So, the Tukey HSD by ranks test was conducted. Any rank difference greater than the critical HSDRank (35.1588) was considered as significant. For example, there was no significant difference between sample A and sample B as the rank totals was 4.0000. However, the rank totals of sample A and Sample C was 140.0000, which is significant. Moreover, compared with the sum value of sample A and C, the sum value of sample A was bigger than C, and consequently, sample A was more acceptable than C. As a result, sample A was much better than the other samples.
Introduction
Commercial test is the final stage of product testing. In this stage, test products and market products were chosen to conform if the final product meets up to the expectation of the consumers. In other words, the original WHATs, sweetness, milk flavor, kiwi flavor and thickness, have to be achieved and the overall acceptability of the product should be determined, which all should be confirmed in commercial sensory test.
Experimental Design
Four product samples were evaluated for four attributes and overall acceptability by 56 untrained assessors. A balanced complete block was used. A preference test with 9-point hedonic scale commercial sensory test was conducted and finished by using ‘Compusense Five’ in sensory taste panel room in one day. Four products were labeled on different codes during the commercial sensory test which are indicated in Table below. Before each sensory test, assessors would be required to sign in the allergy form to make assessors understanding sensory test. The meaning of the 9-point hedonic scale would be explained to assessors. Samples would be presented one by one. Twenty seconds time would be controlled between two samples and ‘drink more water between 2 samples’ would be suggested. As temperature is an important parameter for sensory test, 4-6℃ of samples’ temperature would be insured during the experiments.
Result analysis
The results of the commercial test have been analysed using the project R. As a preference test with 9-point hedonic scale was conducted, the single factor within-subject ANOVA with rating test would be used first, which includes Tukey additivity test and ANOVA test. If the Tukey additivity test is not rejected and the ANOVA test is significant, then the Tukey’s honestly significant difference test would be conducted. Otherwise, if the Tukey additives test is significant, which means that there was interaction between two samples, so that the Friedman test would be used. What is more, if the results show the Friedman test is rejected, Tukey HSD by ranks test would be acted.
The analysis was divided into 5 parts which expressed attributes individually. For results of sweetness, milk flavour, thickness and overall acceptability, the Tukey additivity test was not rejected and the ANOVA tests was significant. So, Tukey’s honestly significant difference test was carried. In the results of Tukey’s honestly significant difference test, in sweetness for instance, the difference of sample A and sample B was -0.08928571 indicating that the value of sample A is bigger than B.That means that sample A is more acceptable than sample B. From that test, it suggested that sample A (Low fat soya yogurt drink with kiwi flavour 1, code no.949) is the most acceptable one among the 4 samples for all the attributes except milk flavour. Sample B contain more cow’s yoghurt than sample A, so that the milk flavour is more acceptable. However, according to the results of overall acceptability, sample A seems to be better than B, following by C and D. To sum up, trends for overall acceptability indicate that: A>B>C>D.
As for the fruit flavour, the results from Tukey additivity test were significant while for Friedman test were non-significant. So, the Tukey HSD by ranks test was conducted. Any rank difference greater than the critical HSDRank (35.1588) was considered as significant. For example, there was no significant difference between sample A and sample B as the rank totals was 4.0000. However, the rank totals of sample A and Sample C was 140.0000, which is significant. Moreover, compared with the sum value of sample A and C, the sum value of sample A was bigger than C, and consequently, sample A was more acceptable than C. As a result, sample A was much better than the other samples.
Back to Experiment
Back to home page
Back to Stage IV